"Spam with beans, spam with greens or spam with lentils"

In last week's Times I wrote about the tendency of the three main political parties to gather around the established centre of British politics:

"Britain’s mainstream political parties all look set to offer a very similar menu at the next election. It will be the political equivalent of spam with beans, spam with greens or spam with lentils.  The manifestos will have different flavours but the country will essentially enjoy the same diet whoever triumphs on polling day."

Now, for me, there are still enough reasons to vote for the Tory rendition of spam rather than the Labour or LibDem interpretation.  Tax simplification, David Cameron's support for marriage, the difficult-to-deliver promise to take Britain out of the EU Social Chapter, police reform and innovative new schemes for first-time homebuyers all stand out as making it worthwhile to vote Conservative.  But most voters see less and less difference between the big parties.

That assessment of public opinion is confirmed by a YouGov survey for today's Telegraph.  65% of all voters agreed that none of the political parties accurately represented their views.  Exactly the same proportion agreed that they didn't know what the main parties stood for anymore.  58% thought that all the parties were "much of a muchness."  More than 70% agreed that "if you vote a party into power, you never quite know what you're going to get."

All of these findings point to a deep dissatisfaction with the main parties.  Whenever voters get a chance to vote for an independent candidate with a realistic chance of winning - whether that be Bethnall Green and Bow, Blaenau Gwent or Wyre Forest - they appear to seize it with enthusiasm.

For me one of the most interesting questions in politics is whether people want 'authentic political leaders' or 'servant political leaders'?  Political leaders who say what they think or political leaders who say what they think you want them to say.  Most of today's politics is poll-driven but how much respect do politicians lose in the process of fine-tuning their beliefs?  I'm inclined to vote for authenticity most of the time but the lesson of Arnold Schwarzenegger - perhaps untypical - suggests that I could be wrong.  He revels in the idea that he is an eager-to-please politician:

"I’m eager to please the voters because I’m a public servant. I don’t see myself as a politician. I see myself as a public servant. I serve the people of California. I serve Democrats and Republicans, and if someone says that, that I’m eager to please, yes, I am. I’m there to please the people.  That’s what this is all about."

Comments

[Graeme Archer]

The only time I have ever agreed with anything Hillary Clinton said was the night of her first Senate victory in NY. She said something like "Today we voted as Democrats and Republicans. Tomorrow we go forward as Americans". It's a hard act to get right - but the basis of our British system - that you fight on a platform but then govern for all of your constituents. I remember Dennis Skinner saying something similar to that effect, that he spent most of his constituency work helping old Tory ladies sort out problems where they were being wronged by the Labour council.

The only Tory spam I see is the stuff that clogs up this website day after day, written by our political enemies.

Is our platform clearly of the centre-right? Yes it is. Will it increase personal freedom over state control? Yes it will. Will it be clearly eurosceptic? Yes it will. Can anyone vote in the next election thinking that taxes will be higher with the Conservatives than Labour? No they can't. Are we still unionists? Yes we are.

[Graeme Archer]

Pressed "Post" rather than "Preview" and would have re-edited that last paragraph, which was going to end "Will the electoin platform reflect 100% the very personal views of any single Tory? No it won't. Does that make it inauthentic? Of course it does not."

[Gospel of Enoch]

I am delighted to read that people seize the chance to vote for "Independent" candidates with relish. This proves the wisdom of Nigel Farage's rebranding, announced today in the DT, and spells yet more woe for the hapless Camerloon...

[malcolm]

Hear,hear Graeme.

[Peter Hatchet]

I hope EVERYONE will ignore "Gospel of Enoch" on this thread.

[Denis Cooper]

I'm afraid that there are fundamental problems with the system, not just with the present configuration of parties. Voters can't know what they're voting for because they vote for parties running on manifestos which dishonestly avoid emphasising or even mentioning certain important policies, rather than for a person who clearly sets out his true opinions and will stand by them despite threats and/or bribes from party whips. We need some pretty far reaching reforms, and here are four suggestions for starters. First, if a whip in Parliament acts in a way which would be treated as illegal outside Parliament, then it should also be treated as illegal inside Parliament. Second, if an elected representative persistently breaks the pledges upon which he was elected, or proves corrupt or incompetent, then it should be possible for his constituents to requisition a fresh election and replace him. Third, all international treaties which would potentially impact upon domestic law should not only require Parliamentary ratification, but also automatically need approval by the people in a national referendum. Fourth, in any case the citizens should have the power to requisition a binding referendum on any issue.

[Richard]

As I have pointed out before there are certain viewpoints such as the restoration of capital punishment (on the right) or higher taxes on the wealthy (on the left) that could probably hold majority public support but which none of the major parties stand for. I suspect that this situation contributes towards the frustration and the view that "they're all the same".

[Gospel of Enoch]

Ok, Peter. You ignore Gospel, I'll ignore "Hatchet" job postings. :-)
But you can't escape what Thatcher wrote: we are perceived to have a clearer and more principled position on the EU. Deal with it...

[Jake]

There speaks an English mind Denis -

see Putney Debates 1647 .

[Matt Davis]

The key question thrown up by the Spam argument, a question that everyone seems very keen to ignore, is will the electorate then bother to vote for anybody? I am and have always been a strong advocate of the clear blue water view and fear that it is going to become increasingly hard to persuade people to vote at all, never mind for us, if they can't see any real differences between what they've got now and what we are offering them.I saw clear evidence of that on the doorstep during last year's local elections. The number of people saying that they weren't going to bother to vote because "you're all the same" was considerably greater than I have ever seen it before and the turnouts reflected that.No wonder we have hit a glass ceiling in the polls.And for that matter if politics is now going to be entirely governed by polling and focus groups, as opposed to principles, beliefs and policies, then why bother to be involved in it anymore since being an activist will no longer be about standing up for what you believe in or being able to influence what your party stands for since everyone will be expected to blow about in the winds of poll results and focus groups. That isn't politics it is marketing and to my mind that's just plain wrong.

[Opinicus]

This is what i have been saying all last year. The electorate do not like the current fix between the 3 main parties. They want honesty low taxes efficient public services low immigration and tough action on crime. This sounds superficially like the Conservatives until you look at the detail and their recent record.

[Opinicus]

I absolutely agree with Denis Cooper and have sent in a 100 policies to the editor on the use of referenda as a way round the fix.

[DavidDPB]

The first past the post electoral system encourages the creation of parties that are broad churches. For party to win, it will need to appeal to as broad a mass of people as possible. The percentage of the vote needed to win will mean people will naturally not find parties with the potential to win power in which they agree 100% with all policies.

If that is what you after, then you need a PR electoral system, which encourages parties with narrow views as they find it easier to gain representation. The eventual government under PR will of course be much like that under FPTP, since involving coalitions will mean programmes that not all the supporters of those parties in government agree with.

[Robin Roberts]

"They want honesty, low taxes, efficient public services low immigration and tough action on crime".
If the electorate, and most, if not all Conservatives wants this, why did we loose the last election badly campaigning on this ticket. Is this too simplistic? What am I missing Jonathan? We remain under Cameron miles apart from the Lib Dems and Labour as it is will be under Brown.

[Opinicus]

What you are missing is what the electorate are missing. Any semblance of belief that the Conservatives will deliver as promised.

[Richard Carey]

What you are missing is what the electorate are missing. Any semblance of belief that the Conservatives will deliver as promised.

I always find it amusing when this "argument" is wheeled out. I may be writing as a Conservative activist who has just spent far too much of his evening writing local newsletters, but still...

Why would we not? What possible motivation do you think we (I'm writing this assuming that you're not a Conservative as you talk about us in the third person) would have not to have the honest intention of doing what we say?

I take it that you think we're holding our current positions just to get elected? I think you're wrong, but even if you want to believe that and we were already elected on that basis, presumably we would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by going all-out to deliver it?

[blin]

Something all Conservatives can support!
the legacy: a comedy of terrors
A gripping new E-novel that charts the consequences of unbridled governance, as the ridiculous becomes the sublime.
Free to view. Please use recycled paper.
www.myspace.com/thelegacyacomedyofterrors
Please support E-publishing - it is good for trees.

[Gildas]

Richard Carey:

Why would we not? What possible motivation do you think we (I'm writing this assuming that you're not a Conservative as you talk about us in the third person) would have not to have the honest intention of doing what we say?

I take it that you think we're holding our current positions just to get elected? I think you're wrong, but even if you want to believe that and we were already elected on that basis, presumably we would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by going all-out to deliver it?

I think most people who are into politics appreciate that, but I think you are blinkered if you think most non-political people do. That is a major part of the disconnect this article points to.

People are immersed in an intellectually lazy cynicism about politics. That is why they don't believe the Tories will do what they say they will. [They also have dim memories of tax cuts in 1992 before the election and tax increases thereafter, as well as recent experience with Labour and their promises].

It didn't used to be that way of course...

Once upon a time there was a country where about 80% voted and quite complicated issues were publicly and thoroughly debated. That went away bit by bit. Labour's wholesale ditching of its old fashioned left-wing was part of it. Our MPs' knifing of Thatcher did more damage. Major's limitless incompetence contributed to it. Blair exploited the rise of cynicism perfectly - only to have his government and agenda utterly hollowed out and consumed by it (in a manner almost worthy of High Tragedy). And the media now encourages it as about the only socially acceptable form of general political commentary. The constant leaching away of power to other entities whose decision making processes are opaque but whose verdicts have the power of holy writ underpins it all.

I am at a loss to suggest where to start unravelling the mess in order to fix it, since the prevailing cynicism of the age makes it rather hard to gain support for suggested solutions. So I suspect it will continue to get worse until some Crisis forces people to snap out of it.

[Mark McCartney]

Gildas, that is one of the very best posts I have read on this site

>>Our MPs' knifing of Thatcher did more damage. Major's limitless incompetence contributed to it.<<

Absolutely right. Until our party fully accepts that it bears the Mark of Cain for that disgusting act of cowardice and treachery, it can never begin to atone for its past sins.

[Opinicus]

@Richard Carey
I am still a Conservative in that I have just re-paid subs to two Constituency Associations on 1st January (damn direct debits) but my loyalty rests mostly on habit these days and if the refurbishing of UKIP into the Independence Party comes off properly I will be sorely tested.

Treat not his broken promises as a crime
He meant them, how he meant them - at the time.

As the diary entry for today points out CCHQ is planning fairly openly for a Con/Lib pact after the next GE. It is the only explanation that makes sense of the policy and presentational changes over the last 12 months. If that happens then none of todays policy pledges are worth a farthing.

[Father Brian]

We seem to spend a lot of time mentioning a party that our Dear Leader has deemed "irrelevant". If that's true, why not let them do their worst? Won't the electorate see the difference between our "liberal conservatism" and their "racism" and "fruitcake"? I suspect some will find "fruitcake" more palatable than "fudge".

[Yet Another Anon]

For party to win, it will need to appeal to as broad a mass of people as possible.
The Alternative Vote system even more favours parties parties that are the most acceptable to the most people in a constituency - not actually a form of PR, but punishes an unpopular candidate so that someone who is the favourite of very few but favoured by more people over the people they don't want can win whereas the person with the most first preferences can lose because nearly everyone else hates them - Labour in 1983 woudl have been lucky to get any seats that they were not over 50% in in the first place under AV, it still leads to majority governments and can lead to increased majorities but stops candidates with only a quarter of the vote winning in a constituency, it would kill the BNP's hopes of winning any seats at all.

[Yet Another Anon]

As I have pointed out before there are certain viewpoints such as the restoration of capital punishment (on the right) or higher taxes on the wealthy (on the left) that could probably hold majority public support but which none of the major parties stand for.
I think there is still majority support for Capital Punishment, not sure that there is majority support for higher taxes on the wealthy, in this country there has always been the problem that people seem to want ever more spending and yet ever less tax and these 2 positions do not go together well as there is a limit to how much economic growth will provide more money.

People want public money spent better and they want less bureacracy whether they favour higher or lower levels of public spending, it's not just about what people want, surely the aim for politicians is to stand for what is best for the country and then do whatever is neccessary to get those policies implimented and that may mean presenting a policy as being something else or selling it on the basis of something that the populace considers important but the person proposing it sees as trivial, and of minimising compromise on it and of course on working to inform the public to get them to realise the justifications of such a policy, otherwise what is the point of standing - simply doing what is the current public opinion because it is the current public opinion means that those doing it are no more than administrators averse to original thought.

[Father Brian]

"it's not just about what people want, surely the aim for politicians is to stand for what is best for the country"

Is this democracy? What is there to suggest that politicians know what is best? Most of them have never done an honest day's work. I'd sooner trust a used car dealer than a politician.